|
Harold Fish is an 'iffy' case.
- The dead guy had a long history of violence
- The dead guy was 'homeless'
- The dead guy was unarmed, but there were dogs with a history of aggression involved
- The M.E. said that the wounds indicated the dead guy was in a "defensive position when shot" - whatever that means...
- There were no witnesses, and Fish did not testify
- Arizona law did not allow deadly force as a self defense at the time of the shooting (this has been amended), and Fish was found guilty and sentenced under the law (which is not the same as justice)
- The judge refused to instruct the jury on the principle of jury nullification
This is probably a miscarriage of justice. In my mind, the dead guy was a violent psycho with no business out among society.
However, I do not think that the use of handloads would be an issue in this case. In fact, as near as I can tell, ammo did not come up at all.
|